The Political Paper Trail of Education Reform: Active Legislation on Curriculum Transparency (Part 2)

The past few years have been eventful for the public education system. Most notably, it has experienced an extreme overhaul on the system of curriculum management. With classroom instruction becoming part of the political debate, many state governments have passed legislation in hopes that they could create a positive change.

In all, thirty-four out of fifty states have either passed, tried to pass, or are amid passing legislation for curriculum transparency of varying degrees. While there are a limitless number of critiques that could be made about this approach, the greatest critique is that these policies are being passed so quickly, it can be difficult for educators to keep track of what is being legislated in their state.

To help educators learn more about these policies, below is a comprehensive list of changes that are being made in state governments. While this list cannot be exhaustive, it does give educators an idea of what mandated actions are being asked of schools. This is the second installment of a two-part series and covers the largest category of curriculum transparency, that of posting curriculum.  

Publishing Curriculum on a Public Portal  

Most state governments are pushing for policies that fall into this category of legislation. This area of curriculum transparency has been widely discussed in the media, making it the type of transparency that schools, parents, and educators are most knowledgeable about. However, the information being presented about the mandated publishing of curriculum does not explain the entire policy. States within this category have slight variations, specific models, outlining what they demand of public schools.

The Standard Model

Michigan provides what one may consider the standard model of curriculum transparency. This variation focuses on the common requirements that one may see in the media. In Michigan, public schools must make all curriculum, including “textbooks, literature, research projects, writing assignments, and field trips,” available to the public in some form. Although Michigan does not explicitly state that it should be an online platform, this may be the most efficient way to publish such information.  

Maryland and Florida outline similar models in Senate Bill 786 and Bill 1467. Maryland specifically requires that “each public school shall post the curriculum used for each course” on their “publicly accessible website [capitalization removed]” while Florida requires “a list of all instructional materials… in a searchable format.”  

Arizona does the same in Senate Bill 1211 which demands that all public and charter schools “shall disclose…a listing of the learning materials and activities used” in the current school year {capitalization removed].”  

The Bare Essentials Model

South Carolina has chosen to design what can be called the Bare Essentials model of curriculum transparency. This variation focuses on the bare minimum of transparency by requiring schools to publish the skeleton of curriculum, which is oftentimes the textbook.  South Carolina policy expects public schools to accomplish four objectives in all. First, the school district website must include a list of all textbooks that are used in every course. Second, the website must have an easily accessed link to the statewide academic standards for the community to view at any time. Third, the website must publish any district policies “concerning curriculum development and academic transparency.” Finally, the school district website should outline the process of reviewing and contesting curriculum materials.  

Illinois tends to have a similar level of leniency for public schools under its jurisdiction. The state requests that “all curriculum and learning materials” that are in use must be posted to the school district’s website, granted that they have a website to begin with.

The Luxury Model

Rhode Island is one of the few states that go above and beyond the standard model of transparency heard in the media. This legislation demands that every public school publishes the entirety of their curriculum on their school website in an obvious location. This is not exclusive to the classroom materials or the supplemental readings and videos. Rhode Island considers curriculum to include “instructional or training materials, or activities, used for staff and faculty training” and procedures used for approving, reviewing, and documenting these materials.  

Although Delaware ultimately requires the standard level of curriculum transparency, the policy itself forces the hand of public and charter schools by requiring the development of a web portal for the general public. This web portal is tasked with “informing the public of all the rights granted to citizens under this act” and will feature public access to “a course syllabus or a written summary” to each offered course as well as a “general description” of required and supplementary instructional materials.

Alaska is the third state to provide public schools with the luxury model of curriculum transparency. Like Rhode Island, Alaska requires the school to display all training materials used for teacher and staff training on their public website. The policy also demands that the “procedures used by the principal or teachers” for the approval of “curricular material” be posted as well.  

Public Portals and Curriculum Planning

With the amount of change occurring in policy for public schools, educators need to stay up to date on what the added expectations are of their school district. However, it can feel impossible to uphold state standards when it occurs alongside of planning out the coming school year. Educators need a digital platform that keeps curriculum management at the forefront while providing a sense of security about the school properly observing curriculum transparency policy.